"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Sections
Vitals
The Coalition
Top Teams 2008
COMING SOON
Display
RSS
Search CFR

« Football: She's a Fickle Beast | Main | More Silliness »
Tuesday
28Nov

The Turnaround Secret for 2006

DateTuesday, November 28, 2006 at 11:24PM

Returning starters

School (Returning Starters, 2005 wins, 2006 wins, change)
Arkansas (19, 4, 10, 6)
Illinois (19, 2, 2, 0)
Kansas State (17, 5, 7, 2)
Wake Forest (19, 4, 10, 6)
Arizona (17, 3, 6, 3)
Cincinnati (17, 4, 7, 3)
Rice (17, 1, 7, 6)
Central Florida (17, 8, 4, -4)
Boise State (18, 9, 12, 3)
Ball State (18, 4, 5, 1)
Kent State (18, 1, 6, 5)
Ohio (18, 4, 9, 5)
Akron (17, 7, 5, -2)

Notes
-Data from Phil Steele's 2006 College Football Preview Magazine
-Teams listed had 17+ returning starters

Analysis
Having a preponderance of returning starters is a good thing.  Duh.  But it's a crucial data point for several of this year's turnaround teams, most notably Arkansas, Wake Forest and Rice.

Only two teams experienced declines in total victories: Central Florida and Akron.  However, both were coming off seven and eight win seasons, among the highest of the listed schools.

AuthorCFR | Comment2 Comments |
in

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Phil picked Rice to tank this year. I didn't really blame him, which makes the turnaround there all the more amazing.
November 29, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAdam
Yeh it's interesting because his argument was that although they have all the returning starters, the transition from one offense to another takes a few years.

He gave that model precedence over the returning starter model. Credit to Phil for even bringing those models up in the first place. He simply guessed wrong as to which would be more of a factor, but it was an intelligent guess, as you noted.
November 29, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.